Contact with the thrower...Hmmmm...
 

Question on Interpretation...

SITUATION 8: Team A has a designated spot throw-in along the end line. Thrower A1 extends the ball with his/her arms over the end line such that part of the forearms, hands and the ball are entirely on the inbounds side of the boundary line. B2 slaps A1 on the wrist and dislodges the ball.

RULING: When a defender makes contact with a thrower-in, the result is an intentional foul. Where A1’s arms are located (on the inbounds or out-ofbounds side of the boundary line) is immaterial for this penalty to be assessed. A1 is awarded two free throws and Team A awarded a throwin at the spot nearest the foul.
COMMENT: For a boundary-plane violation warning to also be assessed, the defender must actually violate the rule and penetrate the boundary plane. (4-19-3e; 4-47-1; 7-5-4b; 9-2-10 Penalty 4)

Is is merely contact that triggers the IPF or do we judge the cause and/or whether the contact rises to the level of a foul?

My understanding: it's just the contact - automatically an intentional foul.

What if contact is with the hand only and is only incidental to an attempt to play the ball?

Let The Games Begin ...
 

Great question.

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/images/thumbn...f56f7a6ceb3b16

Before you guys start, just give me a minute to get my laptop, and lay down on the couch. I want a comfortable, front row, seat for this thread. This is going to be good. Real good.

Contact is contact...the rule doesn't make a distinction between illegal contact or what we would deem incidental contact.

According to the Pre-Season Guide from the NF, any contact is a foul. I would also think contact with the ball should not be a foul like other fouls, but that is not what it says.

Peace

OK, now that I've got a few replies as I expected I would get....next question....


What if you had a thrower who saw a stationary/vertical defender within arms reach of the throwin boundary and the thrower extended their arms across the throwin plane such it resulted in contact between the defender and thrower (either with the defenders arms or any other part of their body)?

Does the interpretation above still define that to be an IPF on the defender?

The way I read the interpretation it says "when the defender MAKES contact with a thrower-in"...

If the defender is just standing there and the thrower makes contact, I'm not calling that an intentional foul.

I am going to go out on a limb and say no. That could be wrong, but I think they need to clarify more about this rule. I see where they were going, but it should have said something if the defender are not responsible for the contact like if they were not trying to block or contact the ball or were clearly on their side of the line.

Peace

A held ball on a TI is a possible play.

But now we're forcing B to do that without contacting A?

I think I'll pass on that contact.

Ok, you're guys are playing right along nicely....

How do you decide who makes contact? Where is that defined?

Another play....

B2 guarding A2 who curls around a screen by A3 along the baseline and across the front of the A1 (the thrower). B2 trails A2 around the screen and A1 sticks their arms out just as B2 passes by such that B2 runs into A1's arms. What do you have?


I'm not suggesting this will or will not happen, just posing the examples to examine and/or expose what this rule really does. The arguments behind this new interpretation were that it made things easier....but did it?

B2 is the active contactor of the thrower-in, so I think the rule works okay there.

It's a stupid rule change, and this play is exactly why.

We do that the entire game. Why should a throw-in be any different?

Oddly enough, I had this happen today. A-1 has the BCELTI; B-2 is defending inches from the endline, with arms raised vertically. A-1 jumps and throws the ball into the frontcourt, but just before he releases it, he makes contact with B-2's arm.

I had nothing.

You think that works OK? That is worth an intentional foul on B2 for A2 to deliberately cause contact from B2 just because B2 passed close enough to the endline for A2 to create contact?